R. v. Zurowski (D.),

• Judge: McClung, Côté and Berger, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2003 ABCA 315
• Citation: (2003), 339 A.R. 233 (CA),2003 ABCA 315,[2004] 6 WWR 483,20 Alta LR (4th) 223,339 AR 233,19 CR (6th) 166,[2003] CarswellAlta 1570,[2003] AJ No 1342 (QL),312 WAC 233,44 MVR (4th) 39,312 W.A.C. 233,[2003] A.J. No 1342 (QL),339 A.R. 233,(2003), 339 AR 233 (CA)
• Date: 03 June 2003
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)

R. v. Zurowski (D.) (2003), 339 A.R. 233 (CA);

    312 W.A.C. 233

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. NO.036

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. David Zurowski (appellant/accused)

(0203-0238-A; 2003 ABCA 315)

Indexed As: R. v. Zurowski (D.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

McClung, Côté and Berger, JJ.A.

November 4, 2003.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm, driving while disqualified and failing to stop at the scene of an accident. The accused appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Berger, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 5241

Evidence and witnesses - Identification - Eyewitness identification - The accused was charged with several driving offences arising from a hit and run accident - Four witnesses identified the accused as the driver - The accused did not testify - The accused alleged that the identification evidence was tainted because, inter alia, there was no proper line up, two witnesses had seen the accused's picture in a newspaper account of the accident and there was dock identification of the accused in shackles 16 months after the accident - Further, two witnesses could not identify the accused as the driver - The Alberta Court of Appeal affirmed the accused's conviction - This was not a "fleeting-glance" case, but one involving the recognition of the accused after his exposure to several witnesses - The experienced trial judge was alert to the dangers of mistaken eyewitness evidence - The evidence of the witnesses who identified the accused satisfied the trial judge beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt - See paragraphs 1 to 19.

Criminal Law - Topic 5241

Evidence and witnesses - Identification - Eyewitness identification - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that "Proper eyewitness identification of criminal suspects is often indispensable to the proof of guilt, and may well be its most persuasive and reliable source. Infirmities in investigatory procedures as well as other concerns may weaken eyewitness evidence, but that is because the rules of evidence assessment in this area are judge-made rules of caution; they are not exclusionary rules. Nor is corroboration demanded. Corroborative evidence of eyewitness testimony is always desirable but it must be remembered that even the waning days of corroboration over the past-century have not led to the exclusion of other relevant evidence that is offered without it." - See paragraph 13.

Criminal Law - Topic 5242

Evidence and witnesses - Identification - Corroboration - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 5241 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5250.1

Evidence and witnesses - Identification - Dock identification - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Côté, J.A., stated that identification was a factual question, not a legal one - Côté, J.A., noted that questions of identification, or inappropriate methods used to secure it, went to weight only - Côté, J.A., stated that he had not seen any binding authority that questions of identification generally, or even dock identification, went to admissibility, or were a complete bar to conviction - See paragraphs 25 and 26.

Criminal Law - Topic 5253

Evidence and witnesses - Identification - Proof of - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5250.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 184 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [paras. 18, 29, 44].

R. v. Nikolovski (A.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197; 204 N.R. 333; 96 O.A.C. 1; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 403, refd to. [paras. 21, 53].

R. v. Clark (1985), 61 A.R. 318 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Mezzo, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 802; 68 N.R. 1; 43 Man.R.(2d) 161; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Miaponoose (A.) (1996), 93 O.A.C. 115; 30 O.R.(3d) 419; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 445 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 26, 46].

R. v. Gagnon (Y.R.J.) et al. (2000), 136 O.A.C. 116; 147 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 26, 62].

R. v. Baxter (1984), 6 O.A.C. 225 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 26, 59].

R. v. Goldhar, [1941] 2 D.L.R. 480; 76 C.C.C. 270 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 26, 60].

R. v. Smith (1975), 12 N.S.R.(2d) 289; 6 A.P.R. 289 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 26, 59].

R. v. Richards, [1964] 2 C.C.C. 19 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 26, 61].

R. v. H.M.S., [2001] B.C.A.C. Uned. 185 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Keshane (1992), 11 B.C.A.C. 86; 22 W.A.C. 86 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Stel (C.), [2001] O.T.C. Uned. 602; 17 M.V.R.(4th) 242 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 27, 53].

R. v. Janzen (M.W.) (1998), 228 A.R. 12; 188 W.A.C. 12 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 28, 51].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351, refd to. [paras. 29, 44].

R. v. McDonald (1951), 4 W.W.R.(N.S.) 14; 101 C.C.C. 78 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Duhamel (1980), 24 A.R. 215; 56 C.C.C.(2d) 46 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 29, 67].

R. v. Atfield (1983), 42 A.R. 294; 25 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 30, 47].

R. v. Wedow (1983), 50 A.R. 26 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Papequash (1989), 70 Alta. L.R.(2d) 28 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1989), 105 N.R. 77; 101 A.R. 160 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Paladini, [1994] 3 A.U.D. 1187 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Whalen (D.C.), [2002] A.R. Uned. 239 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 31, 45].

R. v. Reitsma (S.J.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 769; 226 N.R. 367; 107 B.C.A.C. 161; 174 W.A.C. 161, reving. (1997), 97 B.C.A.C. 303; 157 W.A.C. 303 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Ahmed (A.) (2002), 166 O.A.C. 254; 170 C.C.C.(3d) 27; 7 C.R.(6th) 308 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 34, 62].

R. v. Bennett (R.E.) (1998), 212 A.R. 154; 168 W.A.C. 154 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Poitras (D.) (1996), 187 A.R. 286; 127 W.A.C. 286 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1997), 214 N.R. 320; 212 A.R. 15; 168 W.A.C. 15 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Burke (J.) (No. 3), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474; 194 N.R. 247; 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 433 A.P.R. 147; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 205, refd to. [paras. 36, 49].

R. v. Harrison (1951), 100 C.C.C. 143 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Beals (S.A.) et al. (1994), 130 N.S.R.(2d) 177; 367 A.P.R. 177 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1994), 180 N.R. 400; 137 N.S.R.(2d) 320; 391 A.P.R. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Hodson (B.S.) (2001), 281 A.R. 76; 248 W.A.C. 76 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Dorsey (C.), [2003] O.A.C. Uned. 36; 173 C.C.C.(3d) 443 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Quercia (1990), 41 O.A.C. 305; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 380 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Spatola, [1970] 4 C.C.C. 241 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. T.T. and S.L. (1997), 103 O.A.C. 15; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Ayorech (D.C.) (1999), 237 A.R. 351; 197 W.A.C. 351 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Harvey (A.W.) (2001), 152 O.A.C. 162; 160 C.C.C.(3d) 52 (C.A.), affd. (2002), 313 N.R. 190; 180 O.A.C. 25; 169 C.C.C.(3d) 576 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Morrissey (R.J.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Marcoux (1975), 4 N.R. 64; 24 C.C.C.(2d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Browne and Angus (1951), 99 C.C.C. 141 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Chapman (1911), 7 Cr. App. Rep. 53 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

Davies v. R.; Cody v. R. (1937), 57 C.L.R. 170 (Aus. H.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Jeffries, [1949] N.Z.L.R. 595 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

Alexander v. R. (1980), 145 C.L.R. 395 (Aus. H.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Dhillon (S.) (2002), 161 O.A.C. 231; 166 C.C.C.(3d) 262 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Smierciak (1946), 87 C.C.C. 175 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Sutton (1969), 9 C.R.N.S. 45 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Babb (1971), 17 C.R.N.S. 366 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Hibbert (K.R.) (2002), 287 N.R. 111; 165 B.C.A.C. 161; 270 W.A.C. 161; 163 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Williams (1982), 66 C.C.C.(2d) 234 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Pretrial Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Police Guidelines (1983), pp. 98 to 112 [para. 59].

Deutscher, David, and Leonoff, Heather, Identification Evidence (1991), p. 112 [para. 59].

England, Code of Practice for the Identification of Persons by Police Officers: Code D of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984), generally [para. 59].

Williams, Glanville, Identification Parades - I, [1963] Crim. L.R. 479, p. 481 [para. 59].

Counsel:

A.R. Schlayer, for the respondent;

F.K. MacDonald, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard at Edmonton, Alberta, on June 3, 2003, by McClung, Côté and Berger, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on November 4, 2003, when the following opinions were filed:

McClung, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 18;

Côté, J.A. - see paragraphs 19 to 41;

Berger, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 42 to 69.